The ideal time to address this is around 1970 or sooner. It's gotten to where we can't even see it, excluding half of humanity while praising ourselves for our diversity and inclusiveness.
I would find it hard to disagree with you. The lessons of Freemasonry, and the way it teaches those lessons are valuable to all good people, regardless of gender. In an ideal world there would be a diversity of Masonic experience, from male only Lodges, to female only Lodges, to mixed gender Lodges.
We do of course have that now in the United States, to a very limited extent, but we collectively like to forget about it, and we have certainly never encouraged it.
Ultimately, it all comes down to concerns about Recognition and Regularity. In some ways we don't see the importance of those things, and in other ways, we very badly misunderstand the meaning of those things.
I believe that we ultimately won't get these issues worked out until we figure out how to properly deal with the GOdF. Continuing to insist that one of the oldest, most distinguished, and most influential Grand Lodges in the world can't somehow be acknowledged as such, and that its members can't be considered Freemasons is just plain goofy.
But, if we can't even deal with that schism rationally, we are a very long way from addressing issues that seem closer to home.
MW, you wrote, " Someday our Regular Grand Lodges will come under attack for being single gendered." I'm here to tell you that the someday to which you refer is TODAY The attackers aren't well organized and don't have press coverage like the UK attackers do, but countless attacks take place privately, one household at a time. We Masons sit in circles wringing our hands, wishing we could enjoy the robust membership levels of yesteryear while so many men won't dare consider petitioning because it would cause domestic unrest. And it should.
I'm a Mason with the love and support of the women in my household but they want nothing to do with it. Of course, there are many women who really enjoy Masonic activities, and that's great. But there are many more who can't be bothered.
Let's stipulate that every one of us who is married or partnered deeply loves and greatly respects our significant other. But our Fraternity still doesn't have a clue what to do with them. We sometimes get them to cook for us. They sit outside at District meetings and play board games while we Masons sit in the meeting to do important men stuff. We introduce them as "our Lady" and sometimes even make a fuss over their dresses. (Side notes: 1) please don't ever call Mrs. Gebhart "my Lady". She'll be nice about it to your face but it'll be a long, chilly ride home for me that night, and 2) would you ever introduce a man and compliment him on his pants?).
We cling to the traditions and practices of 1954 while the women in our lives rightly insist that it's 2024. If we love these women as much as we say we do we ought to concede on this one.
I too have lots of women in my life, and I've got to see their own reactions to Freemasonry, up close and personal. They are, in some ways similar to what you express, in other ways different.
So. I've got three generations here to examine. So here tis...
I often hear something along the lines of 'women don't need Masonry because they have Masonry already, it's called the Eastern Star.'
My wife and two out of three daughters joined the OES, and remain members now, many years later. None have ever been active members. Why? My wife has a really quick argument that goes something like this:
'An OES meeting can't by rule take place without a man in the room. That means that we aren't trusted enough to be unchaperoned. I won't be in a group that insists on male supervision.'
And that makes sense to me.
But, of course, she could, if she wanted, join a female or a mixed gender Lodge. They exist, not too far from where we live, and I do know women whom she could do the whole 2b1ask1 deal with.
But, she doesn't want too. She happens to love Freemasonry, as much as I do. Oddly enough, doing her own thing within it, from outside of it. And all three of my daughters are the same way. All three want to be a part of it, from the outside of it. They won't do OES, but they do ask to do things around the periphery of the Lodge. And no, they aren't forced or guilted into doing these things, they want to, for whatever reason.
But, out of three daughters, only one has ever expressed an interest in maybe someday joining a female or mixed Lodge, and she isn't ready to do that yet.
I do think that maybe, when it comes to my daughters, this has something to do with the whole 'hang out with granddad' thing. They don't have living grandparents, but they seem to genuinely enjoy the 'old guys at the Lodge.' I think maybe because of the fact that they don't have living grandparents.
Then of course we have my granddaughter Avery, whom I dragged all over the State while I was Grand Master. She was four and five at the time. And she wanted to go, otherwise she would have stayed home with her parents. I think it was a combination of things:
1. There was an awful lot of attention and spoiling lavished on her when she showed up at some function or another.
2. When she was my 'escort' at my Installation, I'm pretty sure she decided that they were making her a princess.
3. The swimming pools in all those hotels.
So, that's my perspective, from the four different women in my life. I do think, for them, it has to do with 'grandpa' more than anything else. They like hanging out with the 'old guys at the Lodge.' And I guess that I can understand that. When I was a young Mason, I too liked hanging out with the old guys at the Lodge. And of course, now I prefer to forget that I've become an old guy.
All of that said, I don't discount what you have written. There must indeed be, as you point out, lots of men who don't seek out Freemasonry because it is viewed by the women in their lives as a misogynistic institution.
According the Oral Tradition that was taugh to me, the first rituals were made by women. To clarify on that, Freemasonry is way older than the medieval stone guilds but it wasn't called Freemasonry.
The Tradition says that Freemasomry comes from Egypt and it was institued by Isis amd from there the men were also initiated into the mysteries.
The purpose of the male Priests was and is to protect the Priestess since only a few really know who are they..
I do believe that there is much value and power in myth, so always enjoy hearing the old myths that have been created within Freemasonry over the long course of time. We used to celebrate Masonic authors who wrote about the Craft in a romantic, mythical way, and I think we lost something valuable when we largely stopped doing that.
Funny, I seem to recall taking some oaths on this subject. I don't recall them having an expiration date, nor a "unless this becomes an unpopular opinion" clause.
I do know that the Obligations we take vary from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, and I honestly have no idea as to the content of the Obligations taken in Lodges of the UGLE, having never yet been able to visit that Jurisdiction.
But, the Obligation I took was quite clear.
I could not attend a Masonic Degree in which the candidate was female nor give my consent to a Lodge I happened to be sitting in doing the same.
Nor could I sit in Lodge, or speak Masonically with a Mason from any Jurisdiction that my Grand Lodge does not Recognize.
From that, I would extrapolate that the Obligation I took also meant that when it came time to ballot, I could not drop a white ball if the petition was from a woman, and of course I can only consent, or not, if I am present to do so.
But, nothing in the Obligation I took says that I can't acknowledge that there is a mixed gender Masonic Lodge 30 miles or so north of my home, or that there is a female member of a female only Masonic Lodge living around my small little city. Both of those things are factual.
What my Jurisdiction doesn't do is Recognize either that Lodge, or that lady.
As I understand it, UGLE's action here is similar. They are acknowledging the existence of these two female Grand Lodges, but not Recognizing them.
None of this should be taken to mean that I'm a UGLE fanboy. I'm not. But, in this case, I do think that there is a really big difference between acknowledgement and recognition.
I find it humorous that the same outfit (UGLE) that threatened to withdraw recognition of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Washington for the sin of acknowledging the Prince Hall Grand Lodge now acknowledges female lodges.
I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I'm not as read up on the international response to our first acknowledgement of Prince Hall Masonry as I should be. I've read the Proceedings of Grand Lodges throughout the United States condemning the GL of Washington for that acknowledgement, and our responses, but I've not taken a look at what happened outside of the United States, other than the GL of British Columbia and the Yukon, which I learned stood by us.
I can't know their thinking, but I presume that what UGLE is attempting to accomplish (along with the feminine Grand Lodges that they have partnered with in this effort) is to communicate to the public that it is not out of the norm to have gender segregated activities.
Since I'm channeling my inner Englishman here, say male and female football leagues, male and female darts competitions, male and female AA groups.
I think that those two feminine Grand Lodges have repeatedly communicated that they don't want blokes in their Lodges any more than UGLE wants women in theirs. That's my understanding of the situation anyway.
Your comment re Great Britain's concern by the uninformed about single gender groups . One must consider that our species has survived based on the best allocation of resources. Survival of our children was best served by the nurturing and feeding by females and groups of females. Groups of men were thus freed to hunt, fish, farm, and fend off other tribes. This evolutionary arrangement has served us for 200,000 years.
Does that mean we have to continue this arrangement? Of course not, it should be based on our individual choices not by legislation of “Group Think”.
I am 100% with you there Brother. And so far, here in the US, we haven't been subjected to government force. And hopefully we never are.
My personal hunch is that if it ever comes about here, it will come via the courts, not actual legislation, but that's nothing but a hunch.
I think though that UGLE is actually under threat of legislation from time to time. I seem to recall a time a few years ago when there was a move to make Freemasons in the UK who were in positions of power to somehow register with the government, something like that. And I've also been given to understand that the UGLE's policies surrounding transexuals was driven not by its own internal decision-making, but by the requirements of civil law.
In 1717, or 1723, or whatever the actual case might be, Freemasonry decided, for whatever reason, to come out of the shadows and proclaim its 'official' existence. A lot of good came from that, but not without some bad as well, and as long as liberty deteriorates in the western world, the bad will grow.
Sitting at dinner during the lodge leadership retreat years ago, I was joined by a husband and wife who appeared to be in their mid-30s.
The topic of women in masonry came up, and the wife said "If they allowed women to join freemasonry, I'd be the first to join".
I responded, "if my GL started to allow women into our fraternity, I'd be the first to demit".
They did not like that response.
There are many reasons why I can't stand the thought of women joining "this thing of ours". Women tend to bring drama into whatever social events we have. Not all, but enough that I don't want to deal with it. Having been unfairly personally attacked by a wife of a brother - so badly that it involved GL - I won't stand for that crap. On more than one occasion I've been verbally abused by wife's of Masons, abuse no fellow brother would dare to voice. I've had brothers come up to me afterwards and apologize.
Lots of women in our masonic circles I consider dear friends, but it's those rotten few that ruin it.
No thanks. They can have whatever clubs they want, just don't pollute this one thing us men have as ours.
And formally recognizing co-masons and woman's lodges as regular violates our obligations as masons. I don't care how old and respected the organization is that allows it. They decided long ago to leave, not the other way around.
As Ronald Reagan once said "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me".
I'm with you. I don't believe that a mixed gender Masonic experience would be the same experience at all, and I don't think that I would find value in it.
That said, I do think we need to face reality.
Reality is that there is nothing like a copyright or a trademark to Freemasonry, or its symbols, or its rituals. And there never has been. Anyone at all can call themselves a Freemason, and form whatever 'Masonic' group they want.
The thing is though, we don't have to let them sit in our Lodges. And we don't. We don't have to Recognize them. And we don't.
And I don't disagree with any of that. And I don't think that this action by UGLE was done with the intention of changing those things.
But, I do think that we shouldn't deny, to ourselves, the fact that these groups exist.
Let me give an example of what I mean:
Jane Doe calls the Grand Lodge office. Asks for a Lodge to join.
We can tell her that there is no such thing. Her mind jumps to calling her Congressman, or her lawyer.
or
We give her the phone number of a female Lodge. Her mind jumps to calling that female Lodge.
I would argue that the second scenario is much better. And it can be done without the least hint of Recognition.
The ideal time to address this is around 1970 or sooner. It's gotten to where we can't even see it, excluding half of humanity while praising ourselves for our diversity and inclusiveness.
I would find it hard to disagree with you. The lessons of Freemasonry, and the way it teaches those lessons are valuable to all good people, regardless of gender. In an ideal world there would be a diversity of Masonic experience, from male only Lodges, to female only Lodges, to mixed gender Lodges.
We do of course have that now in the United States, to a very limited extent, but we collectively like to forget about it, and we have certainly never encouraged it.
Ultimately, it all comes down to concerns about Recognition and Regularity. In some ways we don't see the importance of those things, and in other ways, we very badly misunderstand the meaning of those things.
I believe that we ultimately won't get these issues worked out until we figure out how to properly deal with the GOdF. Continuing to insist that one of the oldest, most distinguished, and most influential Grand Lodges in the world can't somehow be acknowledged as such, and that its members can't be considered Freemasons is just plain goofy.
But, if we can't even deal with that schism rationally, we are a very long way from addressing issues that seem closer to home.
MW, you wrote, " Someday our Regular Grand Lodges will come under attack for being single gendered." I'm here to tell you that the someday to which you refer is TODAY The attackers aren't well organized and don't have press coverage like the UK attackers do, but countless attacks take place privately, one household at a time. We Masons sit in circles wringing our hands, wishing we could enjoy the robust membership levels of yesteryear while so many men won't dare consider petitioning because it would cause domestic unrest. And it should.
I'm a Mason with the love and support of the women in my household but they want nothing to do with it. Of course, there are many women who really enjoy Masonic activities, and that's great. But there are many more who can't be bothered.
Let's stipulate that every one of us who is married or partnered deeply loves and greatly respects our significant other. But our Fraternity still doesn't have a clue what to do with them. We sometimes get them to cook for us. They sit outside at District meetings and play board games while we Masons sit in the meeting to do important men stuff. We introduce them as "our Lady" and sometimes even make a fuss over their dresses. (Side notes: 1) please don't ever call Mrs. Gebhart "my Lady". She'll be nice about it to your face but it'll be a long, chilly ride home for me that night, and 2) would you ever introduce a man and compliment him on his pants?).
We cling to the traditions and practices of 1954 while the women in our lives rightly insist that it's 2024. If we love these women as much as we say we do we ought to concede on this one.
VW,
I don't discount anything you have written here.
I too have lots of women in my life, and I've got to see their own reactions to Freemasonry, up close and personal. They are, in some ways similar to what you express, in other ways different.
So. I've got three generations here to examine. So here tis...
I often hear something along the lines of 'women don't need Masonry because they have Masonry already, it's called the Eastern Star.'
My wife and two out of three daughters joined the OES, and remain members now, many years later. None have ever been active members. Why? My wife has a really quick argument that goes something like this:
'An OES meeting can't by rule take place without a man in the room. That means that we aren't trusted enough to be unchaperoned. I won't be in a group that insists on male supervision.'
And that makes sense to me.
But, of course, she could, if she wanted, join a female or a mixed gender Lodge. They exist, not too far from where we live, and I do know women whom she could do the whole 2b1ask1 deal with.
But, she doesn't want too. She happens to love Freemasonry, as much as I do. Oddly enough, doing her own thing within it, from outside of it. And all three of my daughters are the same way. All three want to be a part of it, from the outside of it. They won't do OES, but they do ask to do things around the periphery of the Lodge. And no, they aren't forced or guilted into doing these things, they want to, for whatever reason.
But, out of three daughters, only one has ever expressed an interest in maybe someday joining a female or mixed Lodge, and she isn't ready to do that yet.
I do think that maybe, when it comes to my daughters, this has something to do with the whole 'hang out with granddad' thing. They don't have living grandparents, but they seem to genuinely enjoy the 'old guys at the Lodge.' I think maybe because of the fact that they don't have living grandparents.
Then of course we have my granddaughter Avery, whom I dragged all over the State while I was Grand Master. She was four and five at the time. And she wanted to go, otherwise she would have stayed home with her parents. I think it was a combination of things:
1. There was an awful lot of attention and spoiling lavished on her when she showed up at some function or another.
2. When she was my 'escort' at my Installation, I'm pretty sure she decided that they were making her a princess.
3. The swimming pools in all those hotels.
So, that's my perspective, from the four different women in my life. I do think, for them, it has to do with 'grandpa' more than anything else. They like hanging out with the 'old guys at the Lodge.' And I guess that I can understand that. When I was a young Mason, I too liked hanging out with the old guys at the Lodge. And of course, now I prefer to forget that I've become an old guy.
All of that said, I don't discount what you have written. There must indeed be, as you point out, lots of men who don't seek out Freemasonry because it is viewed by the women in their lives as a misogynistic institution.
🤔
Very well written MW. You opened my mind on a couple issues with this that I did not think of. This post on Emeth is a keeper!!
Thank you Brother! I'm glad you found value in it!
According the Oral Tradition that was taugh to me, the first rituals were made by women. To clarify on that, Freemasonry is way older than the medieval stone guilds but it wasn't called Freemasonry.
The Tradition says that Freemasomry comes from Egypt and it was institued by Isis amd from there the men were also initiated into the mysteries.
The purpose of the male Priests was and is to protect the Priestess since only a few really know who are they..
I do believe that there is much value and power in myth, so always enjoy hearing the old myths that have been created within Freemasonry over the long course of time. We used to celebrate Masonic authors who wrote about the Craft in a romantic, mythical way, and I think we lost something valuable when we largely stopped doing that.
Funny, I seem to recall taking some oaths on this subject. I don't recall them having an expiration date, nor a "unless this becomes an unpopular opinion" clause.
I do know that the Obligations we take vary from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, and I honestly have no idea as to the content of the Obligations taken in Lodges of the UGLE, having never yet been able to visit that Jurisdiction.
But, the Obligation I took was quite clear.
I could not attend a Masonic Degree in which the candidate was female nor give my consent to a Lodge I happened to be sitting in doing the same.
Nor could I sit in Lodge, or speak Masonically with a Mason from any Jurisdiction that my Grand Lodge does not Recognize.
From that, I would extrapolate that the Obligation I took also meant that when it came time to ballot, I could not drop a white ball if the petition was from a woman, and of course I can only consent, or not, if I am present to do so.
But, nothing in the Obligation I took says that I can't acknowledge that there is a mixed gender Masonic Lodge 30 miles or so north of my home, or that there is a female member of a female only Masonic Lodge living around my small little city. Both of those things are factual.
What my Jurisdiction doesn't do is Recognize either that Lodge, or that lady.
As I understand it, UGLE's action here is similar. They are acknowledging the existence of these two female Grand Lodges, but not Recognizing them.
None of this should be taken to mean that I'm a UGLE fanboy. I'm not. But, in this case, I do think that there is a really big difference between acknowledgement and recognition.
I find it humorous that the same outfit (UGLE) that threatened to withdraw recognition of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Washington for the sin of acknowledging the Prince Hall Grand Lodge now acknowledges female lodges.
I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I'm not as read up on the international response to our first acknowledgement of Prince Hall Masonry as I should be. I've read the Proceedings of Grand Lodges throughout the United States condemning the GL of Washington for that acknowledgement, and our responses, but I've not taken a look at what happened outside of the United States, other than the GL of British Columbia and the Yukon, which I learned stood by us.
You've given me a new project!
I was here when it went down.
For what purpose would this accomplish?
I can't know their thinking, but I presume that what UGLE is attempting to accomplish (along with the feminine Grand Lodges that they have partnered with in this effort) is to communicate to the public that it is not out of the norm to have gender segregated activities.
Since I'm channeling my inner Englishman here, say male and female football leagues, male and female darts competitions, male and female AA groups.
I think that those two feminine Grand Lodges have repeatedly communicated that they don't want blokes in their Lodges any more than UGLE wants women in theirs. That's my understanding of the situation anyway.
The new logo looks more like the assasins creed logo, but uglier.. I mean UGLE
Yeah, the "Book & Compass!" I wonder how much the PR/Advertising firm charged to come up with that! 😈 😁
Your comment re Great Britain's concern by the uninformed about single gender groups . One must consider that our species has survived based on the best allocation of resources. Survival of our children was best served by the nurturing and feeding by females and groups of females. Groups of men were thus freed to hunt, fish, farm, and fend off other tribes. This evolutionary arrangement has served us for 200,000 years.
Does that mean we have to continue this arrangement? Of course not, it should be based on our individual choices not by legislation of “Group Think”.
>>>not by legislation
I am 100% with you there Brother. And so far, here in the US, we haven't been subjected to government force. And hopefully we never are.
My personal hunch is that if it ever comes about here, it will come via the courts, not actual legislation, but that's nothing but a hunch.
I think though that UGLE is actually under threat of legislation from time to time. I seem to recall a time a few years ago when there was a move to make Freemasons in the UK who were in positions of power to somehow register with the government, something like that. And I've also been given to understand that the UGLE's policies surrounding transexuals was driven not by its own internal decision-making, but by the requirements of civil law.
In 1717, or 1723, or whatever the actual case might be, Freemasonry decided, for whatever reason, to come out of the shadows and proclaim its 'official' existence. A lot of good came from that, but not without some bad as well, and as long as liberty deteriorates in the western world, the bad will grow.
A tale I've told on more than one occasion...
Sitting at dinner during the lodge leadership retreat years ago, I was joined by a husband and wife who appeared to be in their mid-30s.
The topic of women in masonry came up, and the wife said "If they allowed women to join freemasonry, I'd be the first to join".
I responded, "if my GL started to allow women into our fraternity, I'd be the first to demit".
They did not like that response.
There are many reasons why I can't stand the thought of women joining "this thing of ours". Women tend to bring drama into whatever social events we have. Not all, but enough that I don't want to deal with it. Having been unfairly personally attacked by a wife of a brother - so badly that it involved GL - I won't stand for that crap. On more than one occasion I've been verbally abused by wife's of Masons, abuse no fellow brother would dare to voice. I've had brothers come up to me afterwards and apologize.
Lots of women in our masonic circles I consider dear friends, but it's those rotten few that ruin it.
No thanks. They can have whatever clubs they want, just don't pollute this one thing us men have as ours.
And formally recognizing co-masons and woman's lodges as regular violates our obligations as masons. I don't care how old and respected the organization is that allows it. They decided long ago to leave, not the other way around.
As Ronald Reagan once said "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me".
I'm with you. I don't believe that a mixed gender Masonic experience would be the same experience at all, and I don't think that I would find value in it.
That said, I do think we need to face reality.
Reality is that there is nothing like a copyright or a trademark to Freemasonry, or its symbols, or its rituals. And there never has been. Anyone at all can call themselves a Freemason, and form whatever 'Masonic' group they want.
The thing is though, we don't have to let them sit in our Lodges. And we don't. We don't have to Recognize them. And we don't.
And I don't disagree with any of that. And I don't think that this action by UGLE was done with the intention of changing those things.
But, I do think that we shouldn't deny, to ourselves, the fact that these groups exist.
Let me give an example of what I mean:
Jane Doe calls the Grand Lodge office. Asks for a Lodge to join.
We can tell her that there is no such thing. Her mind jumps to calling her Congressman, or her lawyer.
or
We give her the phone number of a female Lodge. Her mind jumps to calling that female Lodge.
I would argue that the second scenario is much better. And it can be done without the least hint of Recognition.